Russia to benefit from NATO expansion into Caucasus, US envoy says
Mediamax news agency, Yerevan
12 Oct 04
NATO’s expansion into the Caucasus should not worry Moscow since
the alliance’s major goal is to boost security cooperation in
the region to ensure peace and stability, US ambassador to NATO
Nicholas Burns has said in an exclusive interview with Armenian
Mediamax news agency. The reason for NATO’s shift of focus is that
it faces common security threats with the nations in the region.
“These are the threats Russia faces as well, and Russia can only
benefit from NATO’s work in this area,” Burns said. However, he said
that despite active cooperation with the South Caucasus countries,
it was premature to consider NATO membership for these countries. The
following is an excerpt from the interview in English by Mediamax on
12 October headlined “NATO’s special focus on the Caucasus should not
raise concerns in Moscow”; subheadings have been inserted editorially:
[Mediamax correspondent] For the last two or three years Armenia-NATO
relations have entered a qualitatively new level. What factors do
you think played the main role in Armenia’s decision to activate its
relations with the alliance?
[Nicholas Burns] I remember listening to your president’s speech at
the summit meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council [EAPC]
in Prague in November 2002. He announced that Armenia would hold its
first Partnership for Peace (PfP) exercise and contribute to NATO-led
peacekeeping operations. Since then, Armenia successfully hosted the
Cooperative Best Effort 2003 exercises, joined the KFOR operation in
Kosovo, announced its intention to launch an Individual Partnership
Action Plan with NATO, and nominated its first ambassador to be
accredited solely to the alliance. So you are certainly right that, as
your president pledged, Armenia has been increasingly active with NATO.
As to why, of course, only your government can provide an authoritative
answer.
Cooperation with NATO to help reduce regional tension
I will say, however, that, given NATO’s role as the primary guarantor
of peace and stability in Europe, cooperation with the alliance offers
a range of benefits to Armenia. Moreover, the September 2001 terrorist
attacks stimulated a closer relationship between NATO and all members
of Partnership for Peace, as it brought home the recognition that we
face new, immediate, and common threats.
Participating in NATO’s Partnership for Peace can also help reduce
regional tensions. It is therefore natural that Armenia would want
to be an active part of Partnership for Peace, which embraces all
nations in the Caucasus.
[Correspondent] Many people in Armenia think that sooner or
later Armenia will have to choose between maintaining close
military-political relations with Russia and striving for further
integration into NATO. There is another opinion as well: Armenia
can become kind of a link between Russia and NATO in the South
Caucasus. Which of these two positions is closer to you?
[Burns] [Armenian] Foreign Minister [Vardan] Oskanyan speaks of
the principle of “complementarity” between closer relations with
the Euro-Atlantic community and Armenia’s historical relationship
with Russia. The fact that other CIS members also participate
in Partnership for Peace, that Russia itself enjoys a unique and
constructive relationship with NATO, and that we cooperate with Russia
in security issues from the Mediterranean to the Arctic support your
minister’s view.
At the same time, there are indeed substantial differences in the
ways NATO and Russia organize their military forces and defence
organizations. If Armenia wants to significantly improve its
interoperability with NATO, it will have to revise some of those
structures. So there are practical issues that may convince your
government to take a hard look at the future structure of Armenia’s
armed forces.
NATO membership for Caucasus countries premature
[Correspondent] It is very often noted in the western press that
despite the activation of relations with NATO, pro-Russian Armenia
is less preferred than Georgia and Azerbaijan, which are allegedly
“more sincere” in their desire to enhance cooperation with the
alliance. That’s why the authors of such statements say that NATO
should “forget” about Armenia and pay special attention to Georgia
and Azerbaijan. What do you think about this?
[Burns] At the Istanbul Summit in June, NATO decided to put a special
focus on the Caucasus and Central Asia, assigning liaison officers and
appointing a special representative for the two regions. The amount
of time and effort devoted to individual nations within those regions
will be largely demand-driven, depending on the level of interaction
that each nation chooses to have with NATO.
Partnership for Peace is a “26+1” arrangement meaning that partners
individually choose which joint activities they want to participate
in. These can range from training and seminars to participation in
full-fledged peacekeeping operations. None of these activities is
required of any partner. So it is really up to you how much attention
Armenia gets from NATO.
Georgia and Azerbaijan have been active in Partnership for Peace
and the EAPC, as has Armenia. I would mention especially Armenia’s
contribution to peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and successful
hosting of the Cooperative Best Effort 2003 exercise last year. Armenia
recently announced its intention to prepare an Individual Partnership
Action Plan IPAP a demanding and ambitious program for restructuring
defence institutions along more transparent and efficient lines. That
is a strong commitment to continuing cooperation with the alliance,
and NATO appreciates this.
[Correspondent] Do you agree with the point of view that NATO is
ready to go as far in its relations with Armenia as Armenia itself
is ready for it?
[Burns] Through the IPAP, the Partnership Action Plan Against Terrorism
and for Defence Institution Building, joint peacekeeping operations,
and Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council consultations, NATO and Armenia
can go long ways together indeed.
[Correspondent] This April, Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan
said: “If Georgia and Azerbaijan become NATO members at last and
Armenia does not, this will obviously bring about new separation
lines in the Caucasus.” He noted that “these issues not only caused
our concern but also worried NATO, the United States and Russia,
and that’s why they will be very careful and will try to avoid such
a scenario”. Are you really trying to avoid such a scenario?
[Burns] In Istanbul, NATO reaffirmed its “open door” policy and stated
that its seven new members would not be the last but it is premature
to consider eventual membership for any nation in the Caucasus.
NATO’s goal is to increase security cooperation in regions and we
are ready to work closely with the Caucasus countries for peace
and stability.
Russia to benefit from NATO expansion
[Correspondent] After the recent NATO Summit in Istanbul it became
obvious that the South Caucasus has become one of the top priority
regions for the Alliance. Won’t this arouse a new wave of concern on
the part of Russia?
[Burns] Compared to the broad range of interests that Russia shares
with NATO promoting peace, stability, and growth, and combating
terrorism, proliferation, and illegal trafficking areas of difference
are relatively few.
NATO’s special focus on the Caucasus should not raise that kind
of concern in Moscow. Via the NATO-Russia Council, NATO allies and
Russia are addressing our shared interests and seeking to combat common
threats. The reason for NATO’s shift of focus is the recognition that
we face common security threats with the nations in those regions, and
many of those threats arise from the periphery, beyond Europe. These
are the threats Russia faces as well, and Russia can only benefit
from NATO’s work in this area.
[Passage omitted: Armenia is working on the Individual Partnership
Actions Plan with NATO; NATO regrets cancellation of PfP exercises
in Baku; Turkey-Armenia partnership possible within NATO]